Friday, 25 April 2014

Of ‘Hate Hags’, Witch-hunts, and the Orwellian Woman

The term ‘hate
hag’, used to describe “women supporters of Narendra Modi” in an Outlook Magazine article recently gained
currency, especially on social media. Vrinda Gopinath, who authored the
article, clearly referred to three women—Madhu Kishwar, Tavleen Singh, and
Sandhya Jain—as ‘Modi’s mausis’
(Modi’s aunts). Describing these women as what“Libs call Hate Hags or
Hacks”, she states that they:

“have
swung into the national debate ever since the media’s imbalance in promoting
Modi tilted favourably towards him, feverishly affirming their faith on
television, Twitter, Facebook and in their columns. They dismiss contrarian,
inquiring views as archaic and wimpy; and club those who question them as com­m­unists,
feminists, and socialists. They’d love to be hailed as right-wing reactionaries
but are now famously known as Modi’s Mausis.”

She further explains how Kishwar—dubbed as ‘Madhu
Mausi’—“has taken her Modimania to newer heights of emotional fervour”; how
Singh “constructs ‘secularism’ as a dirty word”; and finally, Jain, who “apart
from covering [Modi’s] rallies and quoting every pearl that rolls off his
tongue…endorses Modi’s views on population control and religious demography,
and chants with Modi on ‘Third Front, Third Rate’ and other mantras”. Perhaps,
I am too quick to judge her piece (given that ‘a longer version’ of the article
appears in print). However, even by the standards of criticisms
levelled against Kishwar, or other apologists for the Sangh Parivaar,
Gopinath’s pieces resonates with the crass tone one would normally find in an
amateur, anonymous handle-led blog, and certainly not in a publication
like Outlook (However, given Manu Joseph’s equally crass piece
on the Tarun Tejpal sexual assault case, it is perhaps not so unsurprising).

While
there’s no problem in writing a sarcastic article on these women, what I found
more disconcerting was the over-judicious appropriation and usage of the term
‘hate hag’ by the anti-Modi and anti-BJP voices on social media to target
women, especially on Twitter, who are either sympathetic to the BJP and Modi,
or themselves are BJP workers. This attack on women—irrespective, or in this
case, because of their political
ideologies—I argue, is unprecedented, crass and unbecoming. In using the term
‘hate hag’ the risk is in reaffirming a notion of ‘ideal’ woman, whose
political views have to be in full agreement
with so-called liberal, secular (or religious, fundamentalist) ideal. This is
not to say that there are no contradictions whatsoever in women’s support for
the BJP, RSS, and the Sangh Parivaar—indeed, these contradictions, I think, are
irreconcilable. However, there is a difference in expressing ones disagreement
with these, and using a term that is inherently sexist, misogynistic and
demeaning to women.

In
this essay I critique the term ‘hate hag’ through three broad arguments: first,
I argue the term ‘hate hag’ is inherently sexist and misogynistic, and in using
the term to ‘shame’ women because of their political ideology, we reinstate
another form of a the medieval witch-hunt. Second, I look at the irreconcilable
contradictions in the ‘women’s question’ and the Political Right, especially in
light of the Janus-faced patriarchy that the BJP and the Sangh Parivaar
represent. Here I underscore the role played by real, symbolic and semiotic
violence that is directed against women’s bodies and ‘honour’. Finally, I
present the idea that the term ‘hate hag’ conforms to the same form of semiotic
violence that the Political Right and conservatives use to ‘shame’ women to
reaffirm a patriarchal politics. This, I argue, is creates the Orwellian Woman
as the ‘other’—that is, the notion that “some women are more equal than other
women”, when it comes to being objects of such attacks.

“‘Hate hags’? So what’s the problem? Don’t these women
deserve to be shamed anyway?”

As
expected, since its introduction, the term ‘hate hag’—not so much ‘Modi’s
Mausis’—was widely discussed, shared, and was met with both opposition and
appropriation over social media. The way this unfolded, at least on Twitter,
was interesting. On the one hand, we had the ardent anti-BJP, anti-Modi (or
pro-Congress crowd), who, quite unproblematically, appropriated the term, and
used it to deride well-known women BJP-Modi supporters on Twitter (besides the
three mentioned in Gopinath’s article). Said this Congress spokesperson:

“Hate
Hags perfect term coined by Outlook magazine for NaMo’s women supporters on
social media. Sue me now for saying this.”

Several other anti-BJP/Modi counter-propagandists have
celebrated the usage of the term because of its “shock value”. Here’s another
example:

Some have argued that “such behaviour must be shamed”
(a line of thought which could give the Khaps a run for their money).

“Attach Shame”

These counter-propagandists, it would seem, see a war
coming. “Political correctness”, they say, is of little use when “the dogs of
war are here”.

‘The Dogs of War/Political Correctness'

For these counter-propagandists, it is a case of
fighting fire with fire; of fighting hatred with hatred; countering one act of
shaming with another. They speak of “shaming” women supporters of the BJP, but
fail to see their own language as unbecoming, uncivil, and, ultimately,
regressively patriarchal. I lack the space here to undertake an archaeology of
the term ‘hate hag’. But let’s rely on the dictionary meaning of the term
‘hag’. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘hag’ as:

1. An ugly, slatternly, or evil-looking old woman;

2. Archaic

a: a female demon,

b: an evil or frightening spirit;

3. Witch

‘Cucking Stool, used in the “trial” of witches’ (Source: Wikimedia
Commons)

Thus, by its very constitution the term ‘hate hag’ is
demeaning to women, and is inherently sexist (Although,
many supporters of Modi are quite proudly, and sardonically, wearing the title
of ‘hate hag’—as was with the term ‘slut’, which led to numerous Slut Walks). By underscoring the ‘internal/external’ ugliness
(of women), people who support the term are supporting a perverted logic that
assigns ‘value’ on womanhood based on a notion of beauty/ugliness and
purity/pollution. This underscores an import point about the insidious function
of discipline/punish that’s embedded in the notion of shame and honour (I will
discuss this point in detail in the concluding segment).

‘External ugliness/internal
ugliness’

Coming back, it would seem that Gopinath’s piece, and
the so-called ‘shaming’ the counter-propagandists engage in, occupy a curious
space in this on-going tirade against women expressing their political opinion
on media. We are well aware of how journalists and activists have been
viciously abused on social media by Right-wing fanatics. A BBC Hindi report revealed
how women journalists and activists, like Sagarika Ghose, Kavita Krishnan, and
Meena Kandaswamy, who have been critical of “caste and Hindu nationalism” have
been singled out as victims of misogynistic attacks online. Ghose was abused on Twitter by right-wing chauvinists
who called her a “high-class prostitute”; Krishnan, speaking at a Rediff.com
discussion when someone with the handle @RAPIST posted abusive comments, and
asked where he could “rape her using a condom”; Kandaswamy was threatened with
“live telecasted gang-rape and being torched alive and acid
attacks”. These are among the many instances where women are abused
and humiliated online, usually by anonymous handles. While Gopinath’s piece, and the usage of the
term ‘hate hag’, does not use the abusive language of the anonymous Right-wing
troll, it still perpetuates a language of misogyny, sexism and hatred. For her
and the anti-Modi/anti-BJP crowd, these ‘Modi’s mausis’ are nothing but
apologists for the Sangh, who find fault with the “secular, liberal media” on
the one hand, and “have all been steadfastly loyal to the idea of their Hriday
Samrat, emperor of India, Narendra Modi”. Gopinath’s argument is one which
infantilizes these women for their “blind devotion” to Modi, and yet occupies
the moral high ground. But it is unclear as to what she’s based her assumptions
on. Going by her arguments, there is nothing to indicate that what people like
Kishwar, Singh and Jain write about Modi is qualitatively exceptional in its
content. Sure, Madhu Kishwar occupies a piñata-esque position, when it comes to
“Modi-worship”. Many of Singh’s columns in The Sunday Express, and
on NitiCentral are terrible excuses. And, to be honest, I
don’t know enough about Sandhya Jain to comment on her. That said, I do know
several people, of both genders, who appraise Modi—from enumerating merits in
his so-called ‘Gujarat Model’, and admire the vast and burgeoning propaganda
surrounding the man. But why single out these three women? I mean, if one is
thinking of women insofar as talking about their role in the Sangh’s
moral-political economy, there are women in the Sangh Parivaar who occupy a
more dangerous role.

The Janus-faced
patriarchy and the Women’s Question

On
the face of it, it’s not entirely inaccurate to assume that there can be
grounds for one to have sympathy with Gopinath’s piece. It is well-known that
the Political Right in India produces, harbours, and espouses misogynistic and
sexist ideologies, and, by any standard, is a text-book case of what I have
previously described
as a patriarchal moral-political economy. Women, however, occupy a more tenuous
role in this matter: Should they conform to an ideal notion of universal
feminism where they condemn all forms of misogyny and sexism?[1]
Or, does their support of individuals or ideologies put them at odds with these
so-called universal feminist ideals? Can the so-called “women’s question” be
reconciled by constructing an inner, spiritual domain, free from the trappings
of western modernity—and yet, is ‘modern’ in a more functional way?[2] If
indeed so, are Kishwar, Singh and Jain exemplary in this regard? I don’t think
so. For one, none of the three women are being castigated explicitly for
ignoring/endorsing a feminist question. In fact, Gopinath’s sole criticism
seems to be their hero-worshiping of Modi. She, it seems, couldn’t care less
about actual irreconcilable problems and contradictions between equal rights
for women, and the inherently patriarchal ideology of the Sangh Parivaar.

Before I proceed, however, let me clarify some things.
I am very definitely critical of the BJP-Sangh and Narendra Modi. I have argued
elsewhere that the BJP, RSS, and Sangh Parivaar, with Modi as its face,
represent a Janus-faced patriarchal moral-political economy, and have
underlying fascist tendencies. I have also categorically stated that apologists
for the patriarchal Sangh—and these includes women “supporters”, as well as
members of the Sangh’s women’s wing, Durga Vahini—espouse an idea that is
fundamentally inimical to the goal of achieving equal rights for women. There
are glaring contradictions in the support women give to Modi. For one, I find
it irreconcilable that one can support Modi—no matter how awesome his visions
of ‘development’ are—and not be bothered by the violence perpetrated by the Sangh
on women: be it the brutal gang-rapes of Muslim women in the 2002 post-Godhra
riots, or rapes of nuns in Kandhamal in Orissa during the anti-Christian
riots; or the Bajrang Dal’s and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) moral
policing and beating up of women and young couples; or even the Rashtriaya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s claims
that “rapes happen in India, and not in Bharat”.

Thus, when Modi speaks
of the Nirbhaya case, and promises “security” for women, does he also promise
them safety from the vile, misogynistic elements within the fold of the Sangh? In
her article Gopinath doesn’t ask if we expected Modi, or his “mausis”, to speak
up after Pramod Muthalik, the Shri Ram Sene chief was inducted, and subsequently
expelled from the BJP (Muthalik and the SRS is infamous for the 2009 attack on
women in a Mangalore pub) Apparently, Muthalik
joined the BJP with the objective of “making Narendra Modi the prime
minister”. More pertinently, she does not raise any questions about other women
within the Sangh’s fold—women who do not enjoy the celebrity-like status of
Kishwar, but women who nevertheless believe in, and espouse, the ideologies of
the Sangh Parivaar, violently so, if required.

Take, for instance this clip from Nisha
Pahuja’s documentary, The World Before Her, which examines two
contrasting scapes: first, the camp of the RSS’ women’s wing, Durga Vahini, and
the assaults on women and couples in public places, and pubs (the latter by the
notorious Shri Ram Sene); and second, the selection round of the Miss India pageant.
The instructor at the Durga Vahini camp goes on record to say that women are
“biologically weaker than men”, and must, therefore, shun any hopes for gender
equality. The more shocking aspect about this “brainwashing at the VHP’s
Durga Vahini camp”, according
to Pahuja, is what Prachi, a 20 year-old trainee at the camp, has to say about
her father, (and, thus, the moral-political economy he and the RSS represent).
Says Prachi about her father:

“In
a traditional family they don’t let girl child live. They kill the child. So
this is the thing. I get angry; I have quarrels with my dad. But this thing,
when it comes in my mind, I feel like crying… he let me live. That is the best
part.”

Clearly, if we highlight the issue of women’s
rights—and, thus the contradiction of women supporting Modi and the Janus-faced
Sangh Parivaar-BJP—what Pahuja’s clip shows is more inimical to the question of
gender equality. This, evidently, is what deserves our attention, and perhaps
is worth filling column inches. Instead, what we get from Gopinath is a
pointless tirade and caricaturing of three women, who aren’t even big names in the
BJP. On Twitter itself, several counter-propagandists have highlighted several
female members/supporters of the BJP who have espoused a variety of illiberal
balderdash—from casteism, to (ironically) misogyny. Incidentally, it would
appear that the preoccupation of these counter-propagandists is to find
women who fit into the bill of the ‘hate hags’.

Before
I conclude, let me offer a clarification: While I am critical of the
contradictions between the question of violence against women perpetrated by
the Right-wing, patriarchal Hindutva organisations and the women who support
these ideologies, I am equally cautious about the risk of reducing violence
against women and misogyny to the crucible of ‘culture’. This risk is of
patronising women, and given the colonial discourse of paternalistic
intervention, there is a risk of reinstating what Gayatri Spivak has described
as “saving the brown woman from the brown man”. Anthropologist Kamala
Vishwesaran in her book Un/Common
Cultures: Racism and the Rearticulation of Cultural Difference, too,
highlights this point in the case of refugee women seeking asylum to the United
States, where the lands these women come from—usually the Middle East—is seen
as inherently misogynistic, sexist and inimical to women’s freedoms. She points
that this perception draws from precisely the colonial tension Spivak
highlights, and obfuscates (if not entirely erases) the question of violence
faced by women in the west, and in United States.

Thus, to reiterate the question I asked earlier: can
there be a version of feminist thinking that emanates from the political
Right-wing Hindutva discourse that is in line with the feminist goal of equal
rights for women? By relying of the praxis of Hindutva politics in the last two
decades—and not merely on scriptures—I am inclined to say I don’t think so. I
would, very self-reflexively, say that the ideas women like Prachi and the
instructor at the Durga Vahini training camp espouse in fundamentally inimical
to the language of equal rights. They are based on an insidious logic of
demarcating, and targeting, women based on certain notions they have of the
‘other’. This is based on the double-bind disciplining function of women’s
‘emancipation’ and their ‘punishment’, which can be achieved only by conforming
to the hegemonic idea of what is deemed as appropriate in the patriarchal
moral-political economy. This is the same notion the French, and so-called
liberal western discourse has of the Muslim women. And this is at the heart of
using the term ‘hate hag’ against women supporters of Modi, and the BJP.

Conclusion: A twenty-first century witch-hunt and the
Orwellian woman

In
this essay, I have attempted to present two broad critiques of the term ‘hate
hag’, which was used target “women supporters of the BJP”. First, I argued that
the term ‘hate hag’, etymologically and discursively, is inherently sexist,
misogynistic, and demeaning to women—in this case, since it is used to target,
and ‘shame’, women because of their ideological standings. Secondly, I
stated that there are indeed several contradictions in the sexist,
misogynistic, and regressive patriarchal politics of the Sangh Parivaar, and
the RSS, and the question of equal rights for women, and their security—and,
the patina of Modi’s “development” does little to hide that fact. This also
underlines an insidious Orwellian ploy that “some women are more women than
others” and thus, the latter are more deserving of abuse, castigation, and so
on. Given these two contexts, the effect of ‘hate hags’ is exacerbated as it
functions on an insidious patriarchal logic of discipline/punishment, wherein
the woman is assigned space in the dichotomy of virtue/wickedness. In other
words, it’s perfectly alright that a particular type of woman is the object
of misogyny and sexism and violence (semiotic and/or real) since she—her
very being reduced to her appearance, or other marker (like her political
belief)—represents the other. She may be a woman, but her ‘marker’
(and that she’s casteist/sexist/bigoted etc.), makes her a less equal one.

‘The language of shaming has universal resonance in patriarchal discourse’

Admittedly, perhaps, I am overstating things,
and drawing too many conclusions. In all likelihood, like most things on
Twitter, this will probably blow over (if it hasn’t already). Unfortunately,
Vrinda Gopinath’s piece will still exist. And I will still live with the
memories of the crass, misogynistic and sexist language used by people I follow
on Twitter. Probably a good thing, too: a closet misogynist, for me, is more
dangerous than an obvious bigot.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to some
of the wonderful feminists I follow on Twitter for their interventions during
this debate; to Ketaki for a conversation we’d had long back on women and the Hindutva
Right; and, to Nolina, for her constant encouragement, love, and support. This
post originally appeared in the secular humanist website, Nirmukta.org. I would
also like to thank the editors, especially Satish, for their feedback and for
publishing it. You can access it here.

Notes

[1]
This also holds true in the case of Islam and feminism. In western liberal
circles most debates on Islam and feminism have centered round the ‘veil’, or
the hijab or burqa (these terms are used
interchangeably). However, many other scholars and academics, like Lila
Abu-Lugodh, have argued that this debate reinstates the colonial tension of
“saving the brown woman from the brown man” (to use Gayatri Spivak’s phrase),
and ignores the systemic oppression of women in Islamic regions due to
colonialism, and more recently, the ‘war on terror’. See, Lila Abu-Lugodh, ‘Do
Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural
relativism and its others’, American Anthropologist104/3, 2002.
Accessed from: http://webbox.lafayette.edu/~alexya/courses/readings/Abu-Lughod_Do%20Muslim%20Women.pdf;
see also, Val Moghadam, ‘Islamic Feminism and its Discontents’, Steal This
Hijab, 8 June, 2011. Accessed from: http://stealthishijab.com/2011/06/08/islamic-feminism-and-its-discontents/

[2]
Historian and Subaltern Studies scholar Partha Chatterjee has explored this in
his essay, ‘The Nationalist Resolution of the Women’s Question’. Chatterjee
argues that in the 19th century Bengali bourgeois nationalism,
nurtured the idea of the bhadramahila—that is, the ideal Bengali woman,
who is formally educated, but also well-versed in the traditional etiquettes of
the household. The distinction Chatterjee traces between the home and the
outside, ghar and bahir. See, Partha Chatterjee, Empire & Nation: Essential Writings
1985-2005, pp. 116-135, New
Delhi: Permanent Black, 2010.